Power to the people.

That's the idea behind an effort to circumvent the cumbersome and somewhat confusing Electoral College.

The Electoral College system was designed by the Founding Fathers as a means to prevent a 'tyranny of the majority' lest an uninformed and imbecilic electorate should run amok. We're not quite sure how this system wards off a disastrous election outcome, and it ultimately does not seem quite equitable.

Under the Electoral College system, the winner of each state wins all the EC votes in that state, the number of which is determined based on the size of the congressional delegation. Proponents like this system in part because it gives smaller states a louder voice in the process. The trouble with the system is that a candidate needn't carry the popular vote nationwide to be elected president — witness George W. Bush in 2000.

Because the Electoral College votes are awarded winner-take-all, a candidate who wins certain key states can still come out victorious, even without carrying the largest states.

Because the Electoral College is established under the U.S. Constitution, past efforts to do away with the system have failed before they really even got started. A constitutional amendment generally requires approval of Congress and ratification by 38 states. No small feat, that.

The National Popular Vote agreement already has the support of Maryland and New Jersey and legislation to add Illinois to the movement awaits Gov. Rod Blagojevich's signature in Springfield.

According to the Associated Press, here's how the plan would work:

States would forge an agreement to change the way they allocate general election votes. The agreement takes effect when it has the support of enough states to generate 270 votes, or a majority in the Electoral College. Then the states award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carries each particular state. That way, the winner of the popular vote would be guaranteed to win in the Electoral College, too.

If the candidates tied in the popular vote, each state would give its electoral votes to the candidate who carried that particular state — basically the same system used now.

The National Popular Vote agreement may diminish the perceived power smaller states wield under the Electoral College system, but in reality it would put the power in the hands of the people. Candidates might be unlikely to visit traditional stronghold states where their party has a history of dominance, but that's already the case; neither candidate visited Illinois in 2004, for example.

At least under the National Popular Vote agreement, each individual's vote carries the same weight. We hope Gov. Blagojevich signs on. And we hope others follow suit. The Electoral College's time has passed. — Rob Buck, local news editor